creo_create_project_sheetmetal_planar_wall

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete behavioral traits: it refuses overwrite, verifies sheet-metal subtype and several geometric properties, saves/display the part, and moves older versions of only that part family to the Windows Recycle Bin. This is especially valuable because destructiveHint=true but the description explains the precise destructive scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence but front-loads the core purpose clearly. Details about verification and recycle-bin behavior are packed in without bloating the text excessively. A slight restructuring into separate sentences would improve readability, but each clause contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential context: working-directory requirement, creation of the part and wall, geometry origin, verification steps, save/display behavior, and destructive cleanup of older versions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand preconditions and side effects, though it does not describe the return value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented width, length, and thickness parameters. It does imply that length and width define a centered rectangle and that thickness is sheet-metal thickness, and it adds 'millimeter' units. But it does not explicitly map each parameter to its meaning or boundary behavior beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: creating a new native millimeter Creo sheet-metal part and its first unattached planar wall from a centered closed rectangle on FRONT. It clearly names the resource and scope, and the detail 'first unattached planar wall' distinguishes it from generic sheet-metal creation tools and other planar-wall siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when creating a new sheet-metal part in the currently selected working directory and needing its first planar wall. However, it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like creo_create_project_sheetmetal_planar_wall_current or creo_create_project_sheetmetal_flat_wall, nor does it state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.